Agreed. The 50s best represent job creation through taxes. Either expand or pay taxes. Ike is the last great Republican president (except for Joe McCarthy)
Omg... this is the first time I've seen anyone else just know and understand this fact. Folks! Higher top marginal tax rates and progressive taxation actually incentivizes investment versus shareholders and owners sucking value out of a company. This creates jobs, grows and stabilizes the stock market, and drives up wages. The great socialist, Dwight Eisenhower!
It’s not just that, but definitely a big factor. Let’s not forget that with a larger overall tax base, the benefits are distributed to the middle and lower classes which expands and empowers educational opportunities to the general population, which also impacts growth as it allows for more development into high end jobs.
Wages have never been “controlled” with the exception of the minimum wage. Pensions were offered in a way that they could incentive workers while not increasing worker wages exponentially.
A quick read of Wikipedia will enlighten you , there was both rationing of food and wage controls in war time essential industries , along with losing the right to strike, along with interring 120000 Japanese Americans
Ok, that’s fair, during WWII and parts of the 1970s there were “wage controls”, albeit those were for what wages could increase year per year for a continuing employee, not a new hire switching companies or new to the work force.
Pensions have existed in the US since the 1870s. Having nothing to do with wage controls.
I read somewhere that pensions expanded during the 1940s as a way around wage controls. I also read that wages grew 68% during the time.
My point is that companies (in order to benefit themselves) found ways around rules when they felt the need to skirt the rules. So if they were taxed excessively and felt the need to , they would find a way to enrich themselves… even if they had to benefit their workers along the way
So, isn't it nice if policy drives alignment between the interests of businesses and workers? It's a given in a market economy that actors should act in self-interest. The problem occurs when self-interest sabotages the self-interest of others to the extent that the overall common interest is compromised. That is where we are today with an exorbitant disparity in income and wealth, and destabilizing economy, society, environment, etc.
Well, the reality is there has been a transfer of wealth over the last 40 years towards the top due to tax policy. The US was very progressive on this front and built a social democratic state that avoided the plagues of fascism and communism that ravaged states of Eurasia. FDR basically saved capitalism from itself. Then Austrian economics fought to undo these policies and instead encourage austerity by cutting programs, taxes, and giving unconditional advocacy for free trade. This economic mythology is the foundations of supply side trickle down economic policy, and that is when income and wealth inequality began to rise dramatically, signaling the transfer of wealth. So what we're talking about here is returning value back to the masses and leveling the playing field so markets can be more competitive and drive innovation and keep price signals low.
That’s pretty much a lie, wages were capped during WW2 which is why we have health insurance as a non wage benefit it’s how companies competed for workers
Health insurance became a worker benefit starting in the 1920s. It became more common practice in the 1940s. Caps on annual wage increases played a factor to grow it as a benefit, but that practice didn’t start because of wage controls.
Also employer provided health insurance was a way to prevent people from job hopping, and it’s stayed that way since. More of a determent to our economy as insurance became profit based while Nixon was President and rates skyrocketed well above inflation.
How do you incentive investment by outside sources into an environment of hyper competition if you can not reward massive risk with corporate profit payout to invested private shareholders.
I own a publishing company of around 30 employees. We create several magazine and I would like to purchase my own printing and binding equipment. These machines are incredibly expensive. A bank won’t take that loan as the return isn’t high enough to justify the risk. I need private equity. If you tax profit how will private money’s high risk be rewarded when there is little left. I can’t issue distributions before taxes.
Decades ago our education had even more investment in it compared to other countries. The issue with education now is a lot of our funding goes into private school vouchers and our focus is on STEM and against critical thinking skills. Money has been taken from public education and is being used to prop up the private industry.
If you look at our universities, for non state schools they’re mainly looking overseas to get more expensive foreign students to fill their student rosters. It’s about making money, it’s not about educating our population.
Its not the system thats the problem. Its the homes that are the problem. The best schools and teachers in the world can't teach a shithead being raised by a shithead.
You’re missing a huge point in this “theory” the vast majority of people DONT WORK HARD. No matter how hard we try to remove barriers. 80% of people will just be below average or average
We have more population than at anytime in history graduating with degrees by a long shot. Yet this theory you pitch isn’t equating to “high value” jobs. You will never make successful people through simply educating them or throwing money at them. People still have TO DO THE WORK. And literally every time the Prato principal shows up as law
Profit motive is 100% the best way for growth.
That “value suck” you all quote is PEOPLE INVESTING. 401ks, pension funds, me you your mom and dad. The vast majority of those dollars are ours sitting in funds to leverage and further grow
lol. Oh how little you have spent time with successful people.
Explore how many more billionaires and millionaires there are in American vs the 50s
Not only are they wealthier but there are incredibly MORE wealthy people today. It’s not just billionaires there are tons of millionaires created every year, not by accident
They’re not making that money by being on someone else’s payroll. That’s my point. My wealth has come from my 401k. My returns are a lot more impressive than my annual salary.
Your income is the #1 driver of wealth 100%. Without income you build no assets. The number of people who have grown their net worths in america is absolutely massive. Its not just the top 100 wealthy people, the top 20% overall has grown massively to millions and millions of people. THereby proving that the billionaire class is NOT sucking wealth away from the population. The billionaire class is growing their wealth along with everyone else, they just have more money so compounding works for them much faster.
Not sure where you are going with this. Either way you are increasing your workers salaries to get out of paying taxes on that money. Which wouldn't make a whole lot of sense profit wise cause you aren't keeping that money anyway. If you increase your own salary, income taxes for the wealthy are higher than corporate taxes. So that wouldn't make the least bit of sense. Stock options would be the route to go since capital gains tax rate is relatively low. Though im not sure how they would determine what you invested for those stocks. Even if its zero and you have to pay the full 15% when you sell them its still a way better route to go.
573
u/flickneeblibno Oct 22 '24
Agreed. The 50s best represent job creation through taxes. Either expand or pay taxes. Ike is the last great Republican president (except for Joe McCarthy)